- What is the new evidence Earth is only thousands of years old
New evidence Earth is only 1000 yrs old
15. New evidence earth is only thousand years old is found partly in present discoveries and partly in ancient disclosures. The earth has been through many cycles according to many ancient text, but they all agree the earth is only 1000s of years old. The new evidence is scientific and measurable.
Radio Isometric Calculations i.e. carbon dating
Radio Isometric Calculations (Carbon dating) works if you pre-suppose the Earth is Millions or Billions of years old. Carbon dating is quite limited in it’s validations and evidence without including Deductive Reasoning.
Dr. Gentry examines the implications of the halos of three polonium isotopes found in granite.
According to Robert Gentry in a recent article:
Perfectly concentric halos formed around radioactive elements
“The Earth was never a hot, molten mass as evolutionists claim! Dr. Gentry proposes that the very existence of the perfectly concentric halos that formed around radioactive elements in igneous rock (granite and other) proves there is no foundation to the evolutionary theory. This book provides unrefuted evidence for Earth’s instant creation. Dr. Gentry examines the implications of the halos of three polonium isotopes found in granite. He shows how these indicate that the pre-Cambrian granites
crystalized instantly rather than cooling slowly over millions of years.”
Here is the anti-synthesis to Robert Gentry’s work: https://ncse.ngo/review-creations-tiny-mystery
Here is a long list of reports to validate Robert Gentry: http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm
Validation of Radio Halos / Proving Creation from Geoscience Research Institute https://www.grisda.org/origins-15032
Evolution and the Big Bang Theory?
Evolution Theory was presented to the public domain along with the Theory of Relativity by a partnership between Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. This was the same time period of the Tavistock Institute, the United Nations, Commander Byrd excursions to Antarcticta, the Antarctica Treaty and modern Television. This time period of 1933 to 1953 provides a major explanation for where people are mentally and educated-ly.
Evolution is a mix of real and imaginary
“Evolution” mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. People are shown the real part, which makes them ready to believe the imaginary part. That is how the idea of biological evolution has spread since 1859. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches.
As one characteristic increases, others diminish
Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.
The imaginary part of the theory of evolution
But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
We suggest that a body of knowledge does exist which provides sufficient explanation of the nature and origin of the universe and the living organisms that inhabit it.
We suggest that a body of knowledge does exist which provides sufficient explanation of the nature and origin of the universe and the living organisms that inhabit it. We refer to the ancient sanskrit Vedic literatures of India, an internally and externally verifiable and consistent presentation of information. Herein we find profuse descriptions of an intelligent creator god and his creation.
From Mind Matters, a lively discussion :
Arguments for God’s existence can be demonstrated by the ordinary method of scientific inference
Natural theology has a massive history — it goes back at least to the ancient philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) (the Prime Mover argument). A high point in natural theology was Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, which are scientific (i.e. evidence-based) arguments for God’s existence. In fact, the cornerstone of Aquinas’ metaphysics is that essence (what a thing is) is utterly distinct from existence (that a thing is).
Law Professor Philip Johnson asked about Evolution: From a SOTT.net article
Well, if I am out of my element then Charles Darwin must also have been out of his element because his training was in medicine and theology3 although he was, in fact, a very good scientist, self-taught, a gentlemen amateur like others of his time. Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was a lawyer. But you know, the thing about Darwinian evolution today is that it is a general philosophical concept that connects many disparate fields of science. So that you see, a molecular biologist [is] relying on fossil experts, paleontologists, and vice versa. And they are all relying on geneticists and each one of these groups of scientists outside their own element is just a generalist, is just a layman like anyone else. So there aren’t really any specialists in evolution. It’s a generalist’s country.
Science Laymen Generalists
He could have mentioned as well the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel4, often called “the father of genetics,” and many others in biology up to the present5. A further statement by Johnson is all the more relevant for the general reader, as well as for any philosopher, scientist, or other researcher:
The other thing to be said about the outsider is that every one of the great authorities of Darwinism, from Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley at the beginning, through Dobzhansky, Simpson, Julian Huxley a generation ago, to Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins and so on today, is that every one of those authorities wrote books for the general public.
They addressed the general public and not a single one of them ever said “this evidence is inaccessible to you. Don’t try to figure it out because you can’t understand it.” Indeed, the implied premise of all the books was, it’s easily understood and anyone who isn’t completely prejudiced or ignorant can see that it’s obviously true.
So, I like to think of myself as the reader for whom all those books were intended and I’m speaking back to the authors and explaining to them what they overlooked, that, in fact, their books are not convincing because they’re assuming at the beginning of the inquiry the point that they claim to have demonstrated at the end and so there is a thinking flaw…. [Emphasis added.]
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): “That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an ‘explosion’ – the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.” (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.
Another cosmologist, the German Rudolf Kippenhahn, wrote the following in his book “Kosmologie fuer die Westentasche” (“cosmology for the pocket”):
“There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble’s law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. For example: At one point, an explosion happened, and from that an explosion cloud travelled into empty space, like an explosion on earth, and the matter in it thins out into greater areas of space more and more.
No, Hubble’s law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other.” In a footnote, he added: “In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as ‘at the time when the universe was as big as an apple’ or ‘as a pea’.
What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes.” (pp. 46, 47; FAQ author’s translation, all emphasizes in original)
Above from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
This article explains scientifically how the science way of ‘explaining’ the Big Bang is full of Dark Holes, about 99% filled with them, read on:
We have noticed that Big Bang events happen inside our bodies
So the way the Big Bang is explained to us is wrong and the way scientists explain it to each other is partially provable and partially unprovable, so basically you are in charge of this question. We have noticed that Big Bang events happen inside our bodies and throughout creation and the Earth and in relationships. So generally speaking, we see the Big Bang everywhere and all the time.